Talk:Spell Summary
Delete candidate I don't understand the point of this page if it has somewhat the same information as spell? --'D.' (talk ·''' ) 23:43, January 13, 2011 (UTC) The reason for this page is that on the basic page the community complained that there was information added to the original page and it didn't look pretty. I put this page in because I use the information and think others will too. I would propose deleting the Spells page because it has less useful information on it.Cariban (talk) 15:35, January 14, 2011 (UTC) :But that does not resolve the problem regarding the article layout. Besides what you have added, it is still somewhat a duplicate of "Spells". The information you added should be on the "Spells" page as it is the most linked page and most logical place to have that information, and the article name is the one that makes more sense than "Spell Summary", so I don't see why "Spells" should be deleted. :I would propose to create a subpage to your userspace, and work on the formatting rather than creating a new article on the mainspace page. You can then propose the new changes on the "Spells" talk page to be implemented on that page, or a new one (it could be this one, if it does not get deleted). The table does not need to look like the one on "Spells" (e.g., the icons can be smaller). :In the future, please do not remove the tag until there is a consensus is reached regarding its status. --'''D. (talk ·''' ) 16:34, January 14, 2011 (UTC) :::If you read the comments on the Spells page there are complaints that any additions beyond the spell name and icon seem to be offensive to some. Myself and at least one of the other editors seem to think that the information on that page is insufficient. I agree that the pages both have the icons and the tags on them, however, the Spell Summary still seems to be a valuable page. :::As far as creating subpages on my userspace is concerned, from now on I will only work on my userspace and avoid the politics altogether. ::::The layout problems still exist. Just because they are not on "Spells" doesn't mean they shouldn't be addressed. ::::Don't get me wrong; I did not say the information is not useful. What I meant is that the page itself does not need to exist as the information should be on "Spells", not this page; hence the proposal to delete it. The table can be changed, which is why I suggested to make a subpage to your userspace (I'm suggesting this because it is a big change that probably needs feedback). --'''D. (talk · ) 17:29, January 14, 2011 (UTC) :::::I believe the information here is so easily accessed by just clicking on the spell name in the original spells page, merely knowing that a spell qualifies as as damage spell or cc doesn't add much, if I come to the wiki looking for spells I'm most likely looking for numbers and full descriptions and/or mechanics... if the info under every spell is a must have then it should be in the original spells page with a slightly different layout, if it does make the page look ugly I don't see how making another "ugly" page with redundant looks is a solution... I'm in favor of deletion. VeNiX (talk) 17:51, January 14, 2011 (UTC) ::::::The point is not to have to click back and forth multiple times in order to compare two or three spells. I find myself constantly hopping between pages at this wiki. It's far easier for me to have the information on a single page for comparison. That seems to be at odds with the rest of you so I'll just remove the page and stop Uglying up your pages.